Royal Gossip
March 27, 2019, 03:29:54 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Royalty: Q&A  (Read 41414 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2011, 05:12:28 pm »

At the time when Charles first starting liking Camilla it was well known that Camilla had a 'history'  Kate-Horror-Queen
Logged

libbyrose
gossip insider
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


Harryite #16


WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2011, 07:25:09 pm »

Isn't every religion against divorce?!?

correct about Camilla, her family the Shand's were not Catholic but the Parker-Bowles are. I believe both her children were raised Catholic as well.
and Camilla was already openly involved with Andrew before she met Charles
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15297



« Reply #62 on: May 10, 2011, 02:55:04 am »

Euhm
As far as I know the wiccans are allowed to divorce and remarry with barely any religious issue
At the hand-fastning ceremony the couple vows in front of the coven and high priest to stay together as long as they love each other, no untill death do you part for them!
If you feel that you can no longer live according to that vow you go to your highpriest(es) and discuss it after that you have two options, you give it another try or you walk away!
Quit simple really!
http://herbalmusings.com/wiccan-handparting.htm
Quote
Official Stance on Divorce: At the handfasting, the couple pledges to remain together "as long as love shall last." According to Elyse Tera, an expert in Wiccan ritual, this approach "gives people the opportunity to end a relationship without violating any vows." Wicca offers an elaborate divorce ritual, she says, "because it is a modern religion, and thus reflects the culture of our times, where divorce is almost as prevalent as marriage."

Word to the Wise: The Wiccan ceremony is meant to reflect the modern attitude that love is the defining aspect of marriage. According to Tera, this mirrors the prevailing attitude towards divorce in popular culture: "In older cultures, divorce was a lot less prominent, and marriage was more a legal property rights contract rather than based on love of the participants." In the Wiccan concept, when love ceases, a marriage can be dissolved without guilt or regrets.

Mama Rose's Handparting Ritual
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #63 on: May 10, 2011, 03:35:21 am »

Thankyou for the insight on that. I admit my knowledge on Wiccans is limited  thankyou
Logged

Raisie
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116



« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2011, 04:48:08 pm »

I know how i am gonna sound but i wish many religions will be like the wiccans.Many are against divorce but when one think very careful no one give you any  guarantee of the future.
When William made his vows he said :in "health and sickness,for richer or poorer until death take us apart".....also this remind me my grand parents,they hated each other after years of marriage (not joking) still they couldn't because they made the same vow as William.It was one of the most horrible marriages,and the destroy they left in their children's life (i have to admit in my mother) was so much.

All religions are made by humans and none by god,so it should be allow divorce.
 
Logged

"Only do what your heart tells you."
- Princess Diana

‎"There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy"
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2011, 11:45:57 pm »

You cannot know what will happen and if there is a betrayal on one person's part the other should not have to suffer remaining with that person when they were not in the wrong.
Logged

Grace and Diana Fan
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2011, 10:46:17 am »

It's something I have always wondered, but never even thought to ask. Sarah (Duchess Of York), and Diana (Princess Of Wales) for example...Divorced from Andrew and Charles, no longer HRH, but were still called Sarah, Duchess Of York, and Diana, Princess Of Wales. Why didn't The Queen take them away? Was she allowed? There isn't any doubt in my mind that Sarah should have her title taken away years ago.
Logged
Lieblich
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2011, 10:57:44 am »

They act as last names - they are entitled to use them.  If William divorced Kate, she would still be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

The only thing that can be taken away is the HRH.

ETA 1: That's how it is with the aristocracy, too.

ETA 2: The titles would be lost, I believe, upon remarriage.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 11:06:23 am by Lieblich » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2011, 07:18:16 pm »

If you were a normal person you can retain your husband name so it's the same with titles. It's their legal right so the queen cannot do anything.

Yes Lieblich it's the same with the aristocracy.

I'm going to merge this with Royalty: Q&A  BFF2
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2011, 08:39:01 pm »

They act as last names - they are entitled to use them.  If William divorced Kate, she would still be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.
The only thing that can be taken away is the HRH.
ETA 1: That's how it is with the aristocracy, too.
ETA 2: The titles would be lost, I believe, upon remarriage.

To be honest, I think an exception should be made for royalty and the women should go back to who they were before marriage, title wise and shouldn't be allowed to use a title as a post married surname; Mrs. Windsor should be more than enough. They should not have any titles, no matter how empty, to flog via marketing like Fergie has and if you're out, you should be out. Royalty isn't the same as ordinary people and things should be different in that respect. Fergie still holding onto Duchess of York would make it awkward for Andrew to remarry. If you walk from the RF, you should leave your title behind; it was the same as Alexandra of Denmark until she remarried.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Ceridwen
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 568



« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2011, 12:28:31 am »

I completely agree with you KF - why should the women who chose to divorce their royal husband(s) be given the priviledge of keeping their titles, albeit, minus the HRH.  "Diana, Princess of Wales" or "Sarah, Duchess of York" are still titles and therefore, it shouldn't be given to them since they made a conscious decision to leave the royal family.  Therefore, their names should revert back to their former names or like you said, "Mrs. Sarah Windsor...." etc.  It's more than enough that they get monetary settlement, why should they get the title, too?  If Kate should divorce PW, she should revert back to Kate Middleton or Kate Windsor, either way, I don't care; however, it grates on my nerves that she would still be known as Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge.   bored3
Logged

Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2011, 01:16:36 am »

If someone is really devoted to the job but the marriage is not working, it´s unfair to take away the title. Example: Alia the ex-wife of Prince Faisal of Jordan. (This homewrecker Sara is now the new wife btw.  ick) Alia is a nice and decent woman who worked hard as Princess with her charities. If she is gonna marry again she looses her title (and lose the custody of her kids wtf?). Why? It´s not fair. She didn´t cheat. But that´s my opinion of course  legs
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 01:20:29 am by Dahlia » Logged
Grace and Diana Fan
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #72 on: June 06, 2011, 11:10:21 am »

Thanks for the explanations, everyone! I agree that titles should be taken away upon divorce. I see no reason why they should keep it. Sarah should be "Sarah Ferguson" right now, and nothing more! I have one more question: If Andrew were to marry again, would she still be "Duchess Of York"? Wouldn't his new wife become the new Duchess Of York?

Oh, yeah, and I was reading about Infanta Elena of Spain...Her now ex-husband, Jaime de Marichalar, lost his title and styles upon divorce. So, do men lose theirs, and women get to keep their titles? He is no longer the "Duke of Lugo".
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 11:18:22 am by Grace and Diana Fan » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #73 on: June 06, 2011, 01:45:17 pm »

It depends on the country. Spain is a a very strange example in terms of titles as they are creating new customs that there weren't before. And in Spain everyone has two surnames and the woman doesn't change hers when she marries.

Sarah is not the The Duchess of York, she is Sarah, Duchess of York. So in the case that Andrew married, she would still have the courtesy style.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Lieblich
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #74 on: June 06, 2011, 02:03:39 pm »

Yes, there's a difference between The Duchess of York and Sarah, Duchess of York.

A aristo example is Victoria Lockwood, the first wife of Diana's brother Charles Spencer.  She was "The Countess Spencer" until her divorce.  She was then "Victoria, Countess Spencer" after her divorce.  This overlapped for a time when Charles was married to Caroline Freud, who was the new "The Countess Spencer".  So for about three years there was "The Countess Spencer" and "Victoria, Countess Spencer" running around.  Then Victoria remarried, and lost the courtesy title.

He divorced Caroline Freud but unless she has remarried (can't find info), she is still technically "Caroline, Countess Spencer".  So if Charles actually goes through with his new marriage, there will (again) be a "The Countess Spencer" and a "Caroline, Countess Spencer".
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2011, 05:34:09 am »

If NAdrew remarried, his new wife would also have the "HRH" nimbus.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Grace and Diana Fan
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2011, 01:19:57 am »

I know The Queen's Diamond Jubilee is coming up, so I was wondering if other Royal Families had Jubilee's to celebrate their Monarch's years on the throne? I wouldn't know, because I never hear about other European Royal Families.
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2011, 10:55:28 pm »

^ I'm not really sure, I think that the nordics celebrate more their own bdays than jubilees. But I think that they all will probably do some kind of event but not as much as the UK does.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15297



« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2011, 01:05:32 am »

A silver one after 25 years maybe, but gold would be rare and diamond nearly not existing.
Because the heirs are usually over forty before they end up on the throne
Let's have a look for Europe
GB: Elizabeth: born in 1926 became queen in '52                   at 26yo reigning since 59 years
Belgium: Albert born in 1934 became king in '93                     at 63yo reigning since 18 years
Netherlands: Beatrix born in 1938 became queen in '80         at 42yo reigning since 31 years
Denmark: Margaretha: born in 1940 became queen in '72      at 32yo reigning since 39 years
Sweden: Carl-Gustav: born in 1946 became king in '73           at 27yo reigning since 39 years
Norway: Harald born in 1937 became king in '91                     at 54yo reigning since 20 years
Monaco: Albert born in 1952 became prince in '05                   at 53yo reigning since 6 years
Spain: Juan-Carlos born in 1938 became king in '75                at 37yo reigning since 36 years

I never heard of any silver jubilee celebrations in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden or Spain
Nor did I ever hear of any jubilee for our former Belgian king Boudewijn.
I guess they just don't celebrate it dontknow

Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Grace and Diana Fan
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #79 on: June 19, 2011, 01:17:06 am »

What British dukedoms are available, or rather vacant, if/when Harry decides to marry? What could he possibly become?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!